On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM Dennis wrote > I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I > don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed..... Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation.<
I agree the "explosion " scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of catalytic properties if the metal powder were to get so plastic hot as to grow whiskers And relieve the stiction forces. I think this is why the powder used in Rowan demos had to be reactivated after use. Regards Fran From: Dennis [mailto:den...@netmdc.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device was used (10's to 100KW) and that it turned a steam engine, stirling,..... that could convert the heat and it then could be run without any access to external power sources. Notice I do not wish to imply that the water flow also be required to be powered by the device. I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no control and little instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation with no chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first principles. I would expect you would have to have some external power source to start the device. I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed..... Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation. A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if run for an extended time. D2 From: Jed Rothwell<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: He cannot safely "unplug" it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: "If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates." That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
